halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:XW3 AR3 L3GION/MA5AR-G
Let me just point out the MA5K, which does not follow UNSC naming conventions like you suggested. And yes, i know that HH7-X is Non-Canon, i tried something but i ended up hating it myself. And yes, i mistook clip and magazine for the same thing, noobie mistake sorry. And the new MA5 is meant for attacking and assaulting postions (Close to mid range), while the new Battle rifle is designed for the general infantry (mid range). 13:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Wow. Just, wow. Is this what we have degenerated to? I've seen a lot of bad NCF taggings and reasonings in the past few months, but this one really takes the cake. Lets think about this for a second. What are we tagging this article as NCF for again? Making a very common spelling error in the form of clip, instead of the proper magazine? An ammunition type that is not explained beyond "experimental", and so therefore automatically becomes NCF? Mistaking an assault rifle that should be an ICWS for a CAWS? Sure, these are errors, but they are so minor--so easily fixable without the arguments and hastle that inherently come with an NCF tag--that they could not just be noted on the talk page, or the users talk page, and asked to be fixed? Or are these just tacked on behind the real supposed reason, which of course is, "not following what we assume to be the standard UNSC naming conventions", in an attempt to give it some semblance of validity? Lets think about this for a moment, shall we? True, the assault rifle is shown to evolve from the MA5'B' to the MA5'C', which of course, leads to our assumption on the naming system. But there is also the MA5K, MA2B, and my personal favorite, the MA37, which all apear to be from the same line of weapons. The naming system is clearly not as regular, systematic, and predictable as we would like. The assumption (which, by the way, should not be a valid reason for tagging an article with NCF anyway, given that it is a user created assumption, not a cold hard fact set down by the novels or games) is clearly wrong. But there is a much larger issue at stake here than the reasoning behind this lone article. In the past months, I've been hanging around and watching the site, even when I was to busy to actively participate, and I've noticed a spike in the tagging of articles as NCF, when the reasoning is sparse, or even completely faulty. This concerns me, because it leaves me wondering what the future of this site will become if we give absolutely no leeway to new articles and indict them on NCF charges at the slightest error. When I first joined, my articles were most definitely your classification of NCF. SPARTAN-IV programs made entirely of rebel children, 180 rounds magazines on rifles with three barrels, and other faults galore. But the administration team (good old H*Bad and Rot, bless them) gave me time and suggestions without an outright NCF, were helpful and kind, and ended up making me a better user because of it. I guarantee you however, if I had started out in an environment like this one, I would already be gone. Yes, it is important to administer the rules properly and dole out NCF tags when they're needed. But when does it stop? When do we give new users a little breathing room, and say "Yes, you have some very minor faults here, which should be corrected in so-and-so way" without burdening it with the NCF tag and a host of other templates that bog down, frighten, and outright insult the users intelligence while simoultaneously creating arguments (some, even like this one) on the article? You may disagree with me, and I respect the fact that you have an opinion, but also think that thats no way in hell to run a good site. Thank you, This article was tagged for unrealism; and yes, NCF covers Unrealism. If you have a complaint, go to Rot. The Clip and Magazine mix-up is, common, yes, but the other points remain valid; his "Plasma Rounds" are still Non-Canon Friendly due to their implausible explanation, which is grounds for tagging in itself, and the Assault Rifle as he describes it is also unrealistic in its role. Rifles in themselves are meant to medium-long ranged combat, some having effective ranges exceeding 1000 metres; thus, in no way would any rifle deserving of the title be designated a Close Assault Weapon System. In addition, from what we are given, we have every right to assume that UNSC weaponry follows serial designation; the MA2B is an outdated model; thus one can assume that the MA2 is a previous series. The MA37 is only designated as such within the UNSC Army, where '37' designates the year in which it was introduced, such as with the Kalashnikov; in ever other branch of service, it is designated as MA5. And the MA5K, as per Ajax_013, is a carbine variant of the standard MA5 rifle; K in this case would be used much as it is in the case of the G36K, or G36 Kurz, a German designation for a shorter barrel. In addition; we tag articles with templates to show that they are flawed in some way. This elicits much swifter action than would normally be the case, as if you haven't noticed, users tend to notice tagged articles much faster than regular comments. Our abundance of "Flaw" tags are what keep our swiftly-declining quality ahead of most other fan fiction wikis. Also, you mentioned your own articles were NCF: that may be, but times aren't exactly the same. New users these days won't respond to normal comments on talk pages. In fact, most "noobs," as they are called, are very often ignorant, denying constructive criticisms entirely and dismissing them as fallacies. If tags were not present, in short, the quality of articles on the site would be horrid in comparison to what it is now. As the nature of users changes, and as times progress, so must our policies. AR, I would like to thank you for such a clear post. Most of the points I contended were well addressed and now have the detail I feel they needed to stand as legitimate points against the article. However, I would still like to deal with the issue of the naming system, because it seems to be the only point left to discuss (and the only one in which I felt your post was incorrect). While most of your points on the clip vs. magazine issue, plasma rounds, and other examples of UNSC naming system are thoughtful, correct, and insightful (I for one had not realized that the MA37 was designated as such because of it's introduction year, and I thank you for pointing it out; it was an interesting detail), I feel several of your other comments on the naming system are an exact exemplification of the faulty reasoning I had tried to focus on in my post (I also feel that here, I was not clear enough, and that I diluted my actual points with several flawed ones myself. I would like to apologize for this, as i seems to have fostered or augmented a misconception of my actual point, creating confusion, which is definitely not what I wanted. ). In your comment, you respond with several key phrases that I feel need attention, notably: "In addition, from what we are given, we have every right to '''assume' that UNSC weaponry follows serial designation"'' As well as: "the MA2B is an ''outdated model; thus one can assume that the MA2 is a previous series". I placed particular emphasis on the word assume because it undermines the entire point you presented. (Though from in Fall of Reach, the MA2B is described as a cut-down model of the '''MA5B', rather than a separate series, indicating it is not a separate series, but rather part of the MA5 family). I've put such emphasis on this point in the recent days, because I feel it is a crucial error on our part (in which I am at as much fault as anyone else) in relation to our NCF tagging, at least in regards to certain articles. I feel it is an error because we seem to be treating some of our assumptions as reasons for tagging an article NCF. Though in the case of this article, the other points were indeed valid, I feel the naming point is the opposite because it is actively based around assumptions we have made. I'll use your first quote to demonstrate. You state we have every right to assume that UNSC weaponry follows the in contention serial designation, and I in no way disagree. In my own fanon, in fact, I use the assumed serial numbers. But my point is not to question whether it is logical to use these serial numbers as the standard, but rather, whether or not it should be treated as a cold, hard, iron-clad fact. And the answer, I feel, is that it should not. You see, while it may be a bit more logical, it is not definitively stated canon that the UNSC has to use this system when naming their assault rifles. It is an assumption made by us, the users, not a rule of law stated by the higher authorities of halo, the games, books, and other media. The rules state that to have a canon friendly article, an article must contain “No direct contradictions of definitively established canon” (godmodding and unrealism are both also issues of contention, but the naming system issue is not related to either of these, rather a supposed break in the canon of the MA5 naming system). It has never, to my knowledge, been definitively stated by a canon source that the MA5 assault rifle has to be named in such a manner as we assume. Therefore, I feel that using such a point as potential reason for NCF to be woefully insufficient. Best regards, most sincere apologies for the tremendous post, and fervent hope I’ve made myself at least a little clearer, If the Assault Rifle is meant to have an effective range of up to one kilometre, then what would they need the Battle Rifle, Sniper Rifle (to some degree) or even the new M392 Designated Marksman Rifle for? And nearly every encounter in any war is under 300 meters, the MA5AR-G that i have proposed is to fill that under 300m mark while the Battle Rifle is to fill the gap between that and the Sniper rifle ranges. XW3 AR3 L3GION 21:34, February 26, 2010 (UTC) The assertion that assault rifles are designed to be effective at ranges up to and beyond 1000 meters is, frankly, absurd and incorrect. Most modern assault rifles are desgined to be effective at ranges no greater than 600 meters. For example, the M16A4 is effective only up to 550 meters, the M4 to 500, the FAMAS to 450, the FN2000 to 500, and the G36 to 600. While it is true the maximum range is significantly longer, the effective range is much more limited.